I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Wrathchild(talk) 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of that DYK nom and putting it into prep-area 3. I'm new to DYK. I just want to double check that the nomination will not run before Feb 11. As you may be aware, there are some high level discussions on whether to run a special set on Feb 11.

That debate is for higher authorities than me, but I just want to confirm that the DYK is being "held" for feb 11 or later, to preserve the possibility of a special day on Feb 11.

At the same time, until a consensus emerges, I understand the hesitation to schedule things FOR feb 11, so I don't ask that. Just please extend the same courtesy we extend to the olympics, and HOLD content in the event a consensus for scheduling emerges.

Thanks again for all the great work you do. I've never talked ot you before, but I know I've enjoyed the DYKs you've improved and placed on mainpage for a long time :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Just to be clear, when I reviewed this, I suggested Feb 8 as an alternative because I could see the problems with Feb 11. I wasn't implying that anyone would be celebrating the founding of the Stasi. It just seemed a significant date, in the same way that September 2 might be significant to the Red Terror of 1918 (if it ever gets to DYK), but it wouldn't mean that anyone is celebrating it. Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning, User:Green Giant. For the record, the orchestration of DYK hooks scheduled for special occasions can be a royal pain. Stuff happens -- special requests get overlooked, the update schedule changes, and both whole queues and individual hooks get swapped. All too often, at the last minute an administrator has to swap hooks between queues so that a hook won't be displayed before or after its special date. It's not worth going to that trouble to satisfy somebody's whim. According, we don't honor special-occasion requests on a whim; there needs to be some indication that the requested date has some significance that will be recognized and appreciated by a non-negligible subset of Wikipedia readers. The February 11th date was requested because of an effort to focus anti-surveillance activism on that date; that could have been a valid occasion, but discussion at WT:DYK indicated a lot of opposition to that idea, largely because of a perception that the proponents were primarily interested in promoting a POV. I could not see that the anniversary of the founding of Stasi was an occasion that would merit recognition. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne Standing in a Street in Soho[edit]

The Day We Fight Back wasn't my idea, it was Jimbo's and others I respect. That doesn't mean it has consensus, but it does mean I feel justified in "doing my best" to provide options to the community that might meet the intentions proposed by Jimbo.

You knew fully well that a discussion was on-going for whether to schedule articles for Feb 11, that discussion was active.

My initial impulse was to completely ignore WP:MAIN bureaucracy and the people who feel they OWN mainpage. But lots of people asked me to submit my DYKs to the normal nomination process.

In the back of my mind, a voice said "What if someone tries to sabotage Feb 11 content by fastracking it to run earlier?" I seriously had that concern, and almost decided to keep all my articles in draft until Feb 9 so they couldn't possible be run ahead of schedule.

But another voice in my head said "Come on, HectorMoffet-- Assume good faith!!! nobody would try to sabotage Feb 11 by fastracking nominations that have a clear "Hold" on them". So I submitted my drafts and nominated them.

You probably didn't mean to, but your fastracking completely confirmed my worst fears-- that you and Bench and David feel you "own" mainpage, and even a proposal by Jimbo must be sabotaged or obstructed if it threatens that ownernship. ... I'm out-- I won't participate in generating a consensus for this-- that's up to our board members and others with more talen than I.

But I tell you sincerely, it really hurt my feelings for you to ignore my request for to hold for "feb 11 or later". I completely understand the skepticism for a special day on Feb 11, but when you scheduled my own nomination for a date that had my strong opposition, it told me you don't care much about my opinions, and that really hurt.

IF the promotion of nationalism and ableism is allowed to be held, I think an issue suggested by Jimbo deserves that same level of deference. Maybe Feb 11 will come and pass without a consensus-- but I'll be damned if I'll let 3-5 users decide an issue of this magnitude based on the claim that they own mainpage. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

and in case you think I'm joking about ableism or it's is just me be PC, it's not. Dr. King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The 50 metres is the complete opposite, where we completely ignore character and judge based entirely on the capabilities of bodies. I agree that Feb 11 is more controversial than the olympics, but they're both value-laden, and the hold requests on both deserve equal respect. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see who is responsible for the failure of the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal to get traction in the Wikipedia community, look in the mirror. OK, it's not just you, and this isn't about personalities. Rather, it's about the POV-pushing behavior and the expressions of contempt for standard Wikipedia community protocols that have characterized advocacy for this proposal. Wikipedia makes decisions by WP:Consensus, not by edicts from Jimbo Wales. (And, believe it or not, most of us don't spend our days watching his talk page.) And "community consensus" is not just the collective opinions of 3 to 5 users.

Please recall that when the proposal was raised on the DYK talk page, it received essentially unanimous opposition -- and from more than 5 people -- in a short time. I am the one who proposed that this be handled as a DYK "special occasion", which was was the first time in the discussion that the proposal got any support from DYK regulars. Several other DYK regulars supported that idea, but opposition continued. If you read the discussion, you will see that the opposition was largely due to the perception that you and others were committed to turning the main page into a soapbox for advocacy. When I moved that East Germany hook into the prep area, it was because we needed to have a new prep-area hook set finished within the next couple of hours, it was an approved hook that would not skew the topical balance of the hook set, and recent comments at WT:DYK led me to conclude that the proposal to treat February 11 as a special occasion (my proposal) was dead.

When I saw your message objecting to that hook placement (right before turning off the light to go to bed), I advised you to go to WT:DYK with your concern -- because it was too late at night for me to deal with the situation and because that talk page is the place for discussion of hook scheduling (requests to reschedule hooks are posted fairly often), as well as to get assistance with the non-obvious technical aspects of moving hooks around. I perceived (and still perceive) your decision to ignore that advice, remove the hook from the prep area (without dealing with those non-obvious technical details), and start a philippic about me on Jimbo's talk page, as an expression of contempt for the Wikipedia community and its processes. For me, behavior like that "seals the deal" against the Day We Fight Back proposal -- I have no interest in supporting or cooperating with an initiative whose advocates are behaving that way.

It's ironic that you are suggesting that Jimbo Wales' ideas should override the consensus of the Wikipedia community. You are saying, in effect, that you want Wikipedia to be an autocracy, rather than being directed by community consensus. Be careful what you wish for. Historically, surveillance has been most dangerous in societies that are under autocratic control. Diffusion of power into the broad community (as in the Wikipedia model) is an important safeguard against the kinds of violations of human rights that you are most concerned about. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see who is responsible for the failure of the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal to get traction in the Wikipedia community, look in the mirror.

My grandfather, a navy vet, had a saying: If you're going to kick a man when he's down, you might as well aim for the nuts." So, Bravo-- ya nailed me good, it stings badly, as it was meant to. In another context those words might be a personal attack, but in this context, they're just an intentionally painful truth.

For what it's worth, I don't think any one person or group should be tasked with a decision like this. That's why I was unphased that mainpage insiders objected and that's why you don't see me saying a consensus currently exists to do anything special on feb 11. My thinkging was: If our board members (or whoever) decide to propose serious action to the sitewide community, they'll need a menu of options. But I never my goal to "lead" the call for something special-- and you have pointed out to me that I failed miserably at it. My goal wasn't to convince anyone this should happen, my goal was to create content so that if, come feb 11, a consensus existed, we would have options available.

I recognize that with each passing day, it's increasingly less likely we will do anything special. I've done all I can, and now I just need to stay out of it; if on feb 11 there is no consensus, then nothing happens, and that's fine.

But you show my content the same courtesy you show april fool's day or the olympics or halloween. Hold for Feb 11 or later means hold for feb 11 or later, not "run whenever you please, because we already know the outcome of a discussion that is on-going."

Please continue to respect that the content is to be held for Feb 11 as a potential option for Jimbo and others if they generate a consensus for it. Given that, we need never speak again-- I'm on my way out as it is. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, there's been a request for a neutral third party here from the nominator, who wants an opinion on whether the nomination should be continued or withdrawn. You've been quite active lately; I was wondering if you could take a look at this one, as it involves a hoax organization, a related article about said organization that was just deleted in an AfD, and other issues. Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for posting a comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The San Francisco Street Artists Program Article is a History Piece, and not a News Release or a Promotional Advertisement

I can not fathom how anyone would see this as a news piece, when the substance of the article is really historical in nature. The article is about the history of the invention of a new branch of San Francisco's government, and like most of the articles that I create, it is primarily focused on history.

Once again, history is the substance of the topic and its original form shows that it is tightly sourced to historic facts from newspaper articles. If it was really promotional in nature, then the majority of its text would be without referenced sources. The abundance of sourced references guarantees the essential neutrality of this history piece. The San Francisco Street Artists Program is an public municipal arts program, not unlike the public market in Seattle called Pike's Place. Please read Pike's Place article, and tell me how it is any different than this piece. Does one also think that the Pikes Place Market should also be deleted because it is a "news piece" or is "promotional" in nature? That would be absurd.

The San Francisco Street Artists Program is also about a part of San Francisco's government, in much the same way that the San Francisco Arts Commissionarticle describes a branch of government. Does one also think that the emerging San Francisco Arts Commission article is a news piece should also be deleted or buried? Again, it would be a mistake to capriciously delete any article about a branch of government, or the history involved in the formation of a branch of government.

When reading the article the way it was written on 9 February 2014, notice how it later received massive edits from an unregistered Wiki user whose IP address is 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8. The many new entries of the name "Bill Clark" are by Bill Clark himself, and his edits are obviously self aggrandizing, and almost always without sources. He is an obsessive individual with no experience with Wikipedia, no interest in sourcing his statements, and should really be banned from the article. Wikipedia should consider reverting the article back to its original state of 9 February 2014, and ban Bill Clark and other unregistered Wiki users from screwing up the piece any further. If Bill Clark is allowed to continue to anonymously make edits from various IP addresses, then this article will be a non-stop Edit War which will only fatigue the sincere contributors of Wikipedia, and enable the destruction of a historic record.

I created this article because I witnessed an extraordinary sequence of unlikely political events which shaped a new and innovative branch of municipal government, and not because I need to advertise or promote the San Francisco Street Artist Program itself. At present, I am in no way affiliated with the San Francisco Street artist program, nor do I profit in any way by its existence. Do the right thing and let the facts of history remain in the annals of Wikipedia, and not be discarded by hasty and subjective judgement.

Also, to condense the article would be a big mistake. When examining history, we need to see the complete sequencing of events in order to truly understand a phenomena and its causes. Would we really see an advantage in condensing the World War I article? I think not. When it comes to history, more information is better than too little information. James Carroll (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, the tag has been cleared on this as you requested, but the table, while containing institutions and their location information, has the bulk of the last two columns incomplete (and they actually disappear about halfway down). Does this run afoul of D7, the completeness rule? The introductory text appears to be complete, it's the table/list that is clearly missing the student body size and faculty size info for all but the first institutions in the list. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that nom recently, but didn't want to take the time to say everything that needed to be said. The removal of the tag helps, but the table is still glaringly incomplete-looking, and I have some other issues with it. (For example, it bugs me that, for U.S. institutions, the location column commingles hyperlocal place names like "Storrs" with state names like "Texas".) The hook is also both promotional in nature and a bit lame. --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, my recollection is that you told me at one time that all hook facts in a multi-article hook do not have to be in all of the nominated articles, though of course the hook facts must be found and supported in at least one of the articles. (I had thought that each fact had to be in all of the articles.) Can you please stop by here and give the explanation? I don't remember your reasoning, and don't want to attempt an explanation without the "why". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome—thank you very much for weighing in on the double nom—but this hook is currently in Prep 1 and (if not moved again) destined for the main page at 0800 UTC. (I originally moved it because we are heavy in bios, and there was no reason not to run three in that set.)

I'm having a bit of trouble pulling it apart, but the hook seems a bit off to me: although the article says the book seems to indicate that antidepressants are basically equivalent to a placebo, I think it also says that antidepressants can indeed be of some help to severely depressed people ... and if that is true, then the hook could be questionable.

I dropped a note on SandyGeorgia's talk page to take a look at it from this and from a MEDRS perspective (she had offered to check for the latter), but it doesn't look like she's around today. Unfortunately, this can't wait if the hook needs adjusting (or a complete overhaul), so I'm hoping you can take a look at this today. Many thanks. (I was going to ask Crisco, but it's overnight where he is, and he might not be back online in time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised the hook wording so the fact is focused on the book and not on antidepressants. --Orlady (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, did you take these off your watchlist? Well, guess who's back? The user just uses an anonymous IP now (24.203.254.49), and is just beginning to cause more trouble again. I wanted you to be aware so that you could possibly help me out when necessary. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I still have those pages on my watchlist, but I quit checking them very often because the edits weren't looking problematic, and I got profoundly bored monitoring changes in the details of who's "courting" who, and whether the courting couple got married. (Anyway, I can get my fill of the Bates family in the local newspaper.) --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orlady. I just wanted to thank you for sorting out the DYK template I posted for Savart wheel. Much appreciated :) 81.147.166.111 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To be characterized as an "IP hopper" like that was not a good feeling. Fyi, I believed it was helpful to provide this feedback I thought helpful, in the spirit of contributing actively to Wikipedia. The questions I was trying to raise had--as far as I can see--nothing to do with IP contributorship, and they were not addressed (except perhaps by informing me I shouldn't have done something that the template explicitly told me to do). But I'm probably just no good at online communication in forum threads that, to me at least, feel like a jungle. I'll now go back to trying to steer well clear of such discussions. That's one reason why I choose to edit as an IP--because I find it helps me avoid them. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [formerly 81.147.166.111]

"IP hopper" is simply a shorter way to say "unregistered user whose IP address shifts frequently." I did not intend any implication of ill intent on your part. The fact is that it is difficult to communicate with an unregistered user who doesn't have a consistent IP address. You cannot ask other users to give you courtesy notifications if we don't have a user page or email address where we can contact you. (This is just one of several ways in which being a registered user makes it far easier to contribute effectively here.) --Orlady (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March[edit]

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston,Northampton,South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page.
Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

Orlady, it's been 16 days since your last post to this nomination, and since then the article has made no progress toward addressing the outstanding issues, including close paraphrasing you think is there. Now that there's a GA option, this is the sort of article that could be suggested as an eventual candidate after the GA has passed, though the issues you note would have to be fixed first. I was wondering how long you think we should wait before closing the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you sorted this out yet? EricCorbett 13:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many administrators believe themselves to be infallible, even quoting policy and guidelines they've obviously never read, as you did in this case. What would you suggest as a kinder way of saying "you're a wanker"? EricCorbett 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Eric's comments. However I do find this comment unprofessional: "I might have returned to this a bit sooner if the comments on my talk page had been a bit "nicer". Just saying." Why should my article be held up because of something that Eric said, though I can't imagine what he said that offended you. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says we are "professional" around here? I am not paid for this. I edit Wikipedia and I do DYK reviews for free -- and most of my DYK reviews are never claimed for QPQ credit.

In interacting with humans who are volunteering their time, you need to account for some human psychology -- including the existence of human emotions. Most (more likely all) of us have conflicting demands for our time (Wikipedia is not the most important thing in my life) and most (if not all) of us have emotions that we can't always account for. If a request here rubs me the wrong way, it reduces the chance that I'm going to be motivated to drop everything and respond. If this were a professional assignment for me, I would suck it up and respond immediately, but this isn't a professional assignment, so I don't feel I have to do that. Anyway, by the time I responded to this request, I was no longer feeling grumpy about it, which probably was a better thing for all of us. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Being an infallible administrator Orlady found it difficult to admit that she was wrong, and childishly held up your DYK review in retaliation. Just the way it is here. EricCorbett 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady sure does believe in her infallibility. This talk thread[1] is very interesting. Multiple editors have told her that telling an administrator to resign isn't a personal attack but she has yet to admit she was wrong with this edit[2]....William 00:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going by this statement: "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose)". You could always modify the template and put yourself as nominator. I've commented on your talk page as I don't want the nom to be crowded with a wall of text not related to its promotions. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That statement describes the reality that only autoconfirmed users can create a template. That was drafted as an explanatory statement and added to the DYK information pages sometime after the current template-based nomination mechanism was created (before that, nominations were created directly on the noms page, which anyone can edit). I can see why you interpreted that statement to indicate that submission of DYK nominations is some sort of right or privilege that is limited to autoconfirmed users, but that was never the intent. DYK has always encouraged the participation of anonymous contributors. --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested that anons should be "block[ed] ... from participating in DYK". As you quite rightfully summarized on the nom page they are free to recommend nominations at the DYK project talk page. However I'll defer to your explanation of the situation. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know this is very late but I wanted to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that demonstrated fairness and compassion regardless of how they voted. Its the feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back. So, thank you for your participation and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to continuing to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this nomination and see if it is ready for approval. The initial review was done by that IP-hopper who posted to WT:DYK last week, and I'd like someone who is clearly judging based on DYK rules to make sure it meets our criteria—the fact that "citation needed" templates were not considered important enough to have corrected prior to approval makes me wonder what else might have been overlooked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have just been informed by a bot that there had been a discussion about an article that I had created and you had contributed to at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist) because of a particular fact that I included. It was nice to have been informed of this and it would have been nicer to have been informed of this before the discussion had been closed and a decision reached. I appreciate that as the nominator, the responsibility was not yours. It occurs to me that you may be interested in helping address an issue that I think important. I have a view about how the role of women has been undervalued by history and I think wikipedia has a moral duty to rectify this but has policies that prevent this from happening. I would be happy to ellaborate on this to the relevant person/people. Graemp (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Graemp. Discussion of your concerns about the DYK appearance seems to have occurred on several different pages, and it took me some time to sort it all out. The WP:DYK feature exists primarily to bring attention to new and newly expanded articles, as well as new Good articles. It does this by presenting interesting facts from those articles on the main page. I nominated the Helen Fraser article for DYK after seeing it on a list of new articles. Before I nominated the article, I checked the sources that I could access and I did some editing to the article, including revisions to eliminate what I perceived to be WP:Close paraphrasing of sources.

The statement in the article that I found most interesting for DYK was (in the original article version) "In 1922 she was the first woman to be adopted in Scotland as a parliamentary candidate when she was selected as National Liberal candidate for the Govan Division of Glasgow for the 1922 General Election." The wording of that sentence was confusing, so I looked at sources to make sure I understood what was meant by "being adopted in Scotland as a candidate". In the National Dictionary of Biography I found "After the war Helen was employed as a commissioner for National Savings, resigning in 1922 to stand as the Liberal candidate for Govan, the first woman to be adopted as an official candidate in Scotland." After reading that, I added the word "official" to the sentence in the article. It was clear to me that she was a candidate for UK parliament. When I wrote the hook I retained the wording "in Scotland" to ensure consistency with the sources (I thought there was a remote possibility that a woman "in England" had previously been named as a candidate to represent Scotland, so I didn't want to say "from Scotland"). In retrospect, it's apparent that the words "candidate for parliament in Scotland" could be misunderstood as indicating that she was a candidate for parliament of Scotland (that didn't occur to me because such a parliament didn't exist in her time), but several people (including me, as well as User:Victuallers, who you contacted about this) didn't think of that possibility. It's not uncommon for people who are familiar with a topic to fail to see how someone else could misinterpret their words; linking the word "parliament" to the UK parliament was a good "fix" to indicate the meaning.

You are hardly alone in thinking that Wikipedia needs to do a better job with women's history. I suggest that you get involved with the Women's History WikiProject here. (I have, however, been dismayed to find that the W.H. Wikiproject seems to have a restrictive definition of "history," such that most accomplishments by women in the last few decades are considered to be outside its scope.) --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Victuallers asked me if I had done any similar articles and I flagged up Ursula Williams, but I understand that DYK runs a set of criteria that means it is 'too late' for this article to be nominated. If you are involved with promoting womens history month, this is the sort of article that might have an appeal. Graemp (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a learning curve involved in contributing to DYK -- starting with understanding those esoteric rules for article eligibility. Now that you've had this introduction, I look forward to your contributions in the future -- we are always looking for interesting content about women (not just in Women's History Month, but pretty much every day of the year). --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I was wondering whether you were planning to come back to this one now that Wnt has responded to your concerns, or if I should instead call for a new reviewer. If the latter, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, we have the situation here that a pair of articles about a team of two lugers, both named Tobias, had their articles expanded with effectively the same 600+ character Olympics section (plus other material specific to each person), and each just barely makes the 5x expansion using that repeated material. Is this something where we could (or should) do an IAR and let both names (and articles) be bolded, or require that one of them be unbolded? (Another reviewer felt that the articles were padded a bit to get them up and over the 5x level.) Can you please take a look and decide what ought to be done? I've superseded the tick because of the duplicative expansion (which was only part of the new material), and will defer to your wisdom here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Orlady, I am glad that you went through the article. I have further expanded it. Will you be kind enough to pen through it a bit. Remember its Mohammad Samir Hossain. Take Care.Shoovrow (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear, Thanks for your kind help in editing Mohammad Samir Hossain. I have tried to change the lead sentence and this time its exactly as the reference presents, and the reference is also mentioned beside the word that can create question about verifiability. Still, if you feel like changing anything I shall always welcome. This time I have uploaded a free photo and I don't mind if the previous copyrighted one gets deleted to uphold wiki rule. Thanks. Bolton007 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize, though, that one of the secondary sources you found, that William & Mary law review article, is in the article as a source (see note 52, the very last one). Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunuvagun! However, I discounted that "Analysis and Commentary" section. I was hoping to see secondary sources get used to help support the parts of the article that describe the case, the opinion, and subsequent jurisprudence. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As you noted, there's still a lot of uncertainty there. I generally feel that most judges (or, let's be honest, their clerks) write in clear enough prose that summarizing and paraphrasing their opinions, with generous quotation, is sufficient. As for secondary sources, it's later decisions interpreting that decision that generally make the interpretation that counts (Honestly, I would class most appellate or higher opinions as secondary sources by our standards to begin with since, after all, they are really little more than commentary and analysis of the lower-court decision.

At some point in the future I might expand the article somewhat; I'd shore up the sources at that point. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw your WT:NRHP discussion with Dudemanfellabra regarding the Jesse Whitesell House and Farm, as well as the stub you created. As the photographer for the images currently in the article, I can tell you that it's rather confusing on the ground, too; I wasn't quite clear what I should photograph in order to get elements of both the original and the increase. If I correctly understand your words, I agree with what you've said: although it was originally located just in Kentucky, it needs to be listed as a duplicate because the increase causes the listing to include resources on both sides of the border. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Nyttend. Your photos are, of course, the best part of the article I created. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, can you please take this one under your wing? Nikkimaria had some objections, and I'm not entirely sure they've been answered. There was a suggestion at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Poultry that someone be found to look over sources—perhaps you could do whatever might be appropriate? If not, I think this one will remain stalled for the foreseeable future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Was it the bad pun that put you off? ;-) If you aren't interested, I can certainly try to find someone else, maybe Crisco when he's fully recovered. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I started looking at it, but it was a bigger job than I had time for at the moment, and I forgot about it... Maybe I'll get to it soon. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the size of it. If you can get back to it, that would be great. Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any idea what this photo has to do with Hackney Chapel? I uploaded it to Commons (it's from 1912), but I wasn't sure how it was related to the church, other than being located in Unitia. Bms4880 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea regarding "both being located in Unitia". Unitia School apparently was the black school in Unitia. There's a little bit of information about it in the sources for the Hackney Chapel article, but the sources didn't clearly indicate a relationship (unlike St. Marks Presbyterian Church (Rogersville, Tennessee) or Durham's Chapel School, where there is a strong connection between church and school).

The Middle Tennessee State University folks had (or possibly still have) a major project to survey historical black churches. Since other community institutions were closely related to the churches, I guess it seemed natural to their archivist to put that school photo into the same bin as the materials about the local black church. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this by accident. Good work, especially since I appreciate my photos getting used :-) Did you find anything about whether the congregation is still in existence? Between the dilapidated appearance and the damaged historical marker (I vaguely remember seeing something about the marker getting hit by a truck), I got the impression that it wasn't used for religious purposes anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find anything when I researched the article, but after seeing your note, I looked again. I've updated the article. :-) --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, there's a big discussion going on here, with the creator of the article wondering whether it's eligible.

it looks like this new discovery of the rings was initially added to the article on Chariklo on March 25, and then decided that it was better split off into its own article on March 27, with a bit of information left behind. The obvious question: since the material is effectively new as of March 25, does the newly split article on March 27 count as new, or is it a 5x expansion? And if 5x, is the expansion based on the material left behind, or on the material brought over intact? (Not all of the March 27 material, 1448 prose characters worth, is copied.) The article has been expanded since the original post to the DYK talk page, and it's now at 4849 prose characters.

I figure you'd probably be best at parsing this out. My advice was to get the nomination in now. Either it qualifies as new or it might already qualify as 5x depending on how much has been copied. Even if it doesn't qualify in terms of either, I imagine that it's close. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, Gerda's latest comment contains the phrase "your turn", so I think she wants/needs/is expecting you to take the next step. Can you please take a look to see what needs to be done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I hereby bestow upon you The Barnstar of Diligence for your continued commitment to maintaining the quality and excellence of Wikipedia's Did you know project. I've been a big fan of your contributions for many years now, and so I felt that it was fitting to commend your efforts with this small token of my esteem! -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Caponer! As you know, however, I am only one of many -- and some of the others are far more diligent. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, the creator has asked a question here, in a response to your previous comment. Did you want to answer it, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer? Please let me know if it's the latter. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That article had some gnarly issues with POV -- and also problems with presentation and sourcing. Rather than attempt a discussion with an elusive IP user, I've been editing it on-again and off-again (to the extent that my time and my limited patience with tabloid sources and opinionated blogs allow): edits since the anon's last comment. It's getting close to being ready. --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know it's being taken care of (and I very much understand about limited patience in that circumstance). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I'm bothered by this post[3] of yours too. You accuse of someone of using multiple accounts. Where's your proof and why haven't you started an SPI? Didn't I hear someone not too long ago say 'serious allegations require serious evidence'?...William 22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not sockpuppetry when the former account is not currently blocked and is not currently in use. But I know a WP:DUCK when I see one, especially with all the IP ducks we've seen. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And what's that supposed to mean?...William 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm campaigning against you now. That and your link above are possible proof of you violating WP:CIVIL You still ignore WP:SPS. For the second time, explain how a wedding announcement and miscarriage are trivia and helping in a campaign and who somebody supports for President isn't? Maybe I should be preparing an ANI post when I get up in the morning....William 03:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about a television show. What has happened to these people since the show went off the air isn't relevant to the show. Stars on tv shows, marry divorce have kids etc. after their show goes off the air, but it isn't in the article on the show. Take The Andy Williams Show for just one example. A biography article on the Bates is where it would belong. If its RSd. FWIW Musdan77 thanked me for cutting the trivia and other things out of the article....William 04:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FTR, the edit that Musdan77 thanked you for was an edit whose main effect was to revert one of the edits in which DC788 had added a lot of the trivia that DC788 had been adding -- and I had been deleting -- over a period of several days. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new about you campaigning against me. You already declared your intention [5][6] to follow my work looking for actions that you could attack me for. I refer in particular to your statement that I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!

As for the article, I started it as an article about the family (who are local to my county) before the TV series existed, but after the family seemed to have established notability due to their appearances on another reality TV show. Someone else later recast it as an article about the show. Many of my edits to the article have been aimed at removing unsourced personal details about family members that were added by fans; I've also sparred with this particular user, who has unusual theories about the need for reference citations to describe TV shows, and who believes that information that possibly could be extracted from studying a table should not be presented in text. As for the family, the family continues to receive a lot of attention (partly because continues to appear on that other reality TV show) and family members have been taking advantage of their reality-TV fame for political activities, including their widely documented support for Rick Santorum. The marriage has been in the article for some time, but enthusiasts keep trying to add redundant statements about it, accompanied by information about blog "announcements" of positive pregnancy tests and subsequent miscarriages. I continue to contend that even though a 22-year-old woman announces a miscarriage during the first 3 months of pregnancy in her family blog, that is still a bit of fundamentally private information that does not deserve to be preserved in an encyclopedia; apparently the other user agrees, as they also stopped adding that detail. --Orlady (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undoing editor's work when they don't follow WP:SPS is something I do.(Not counting UBOA, at least 7 times in my last 5,000 edits[7]) I've written about the use of blogs as sources on my user page. Your failure at that, WP:CIVIL aka responding to my concerns with a link to CNN story about sadistic trolls, WP:IDHT ignoring multiple times my concerns with your edits, and WP:AGF is appalling. Your contradictory behavior at United Bates of America raises WP:COMPETENCE concerns or questions whether you're practicing WP:OWN. Example- You have labelled the same source both not a RS[8] and yourself used it[9] as a source. I'm practicing WP policy but you think its a campaign against you. The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing....William 13:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

When you declared I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!, you clearly indicated why you are now scrutinizing me. This isn't random interest on your part.

As for your accusation of contradictory behavior, I believe you are confusing me with someone else. On what basis did you determine that I was responsible for that second diff of yours? That edit was by IP user 38.108.87.20. As it happens, that's one of the IPs used by the person who is currently editing as DC788. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You're really very paranoid. I'm fixing wrong edits but you think its malicious. As I said above 'The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing.'...William 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want people to assume that your actions are motivated by personal animus, I suggest that you stop making statements like this and this. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Was this edit[10] not out of personal animus or was it due to total incompetence? I can cite at least three times, here's one of them[11] and here's another[12] where you were told your actions were wrong. Whether your answer is A or B, you shouldn't be an administrator. Resign before you once again bring disgrace to Wikipedia or cause harm to someone who didn't do anything to deserve it. Your block of me was overturned because you were dead wrong and you can't admit it. In the meantime I will continue to make sure youf and no other administrator does to some other editor what you did to me. There is nothing wrong with that kind of scrutiny either. Sphilbrick said[13] I didn't have to shut up when he unblocked me. When I am checking on you, if I see articles you worked on that can use further work, I'll continue doing that....William 22:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment at my talk. On a totally unrelated matter, as you've probably guessed if you've looked at my latest series of major edits to NR lists, I'm planning another photo trip, which will take me almost through your neck of the woods as well as through lotsofotherareasallovertheplace. As far as you're aware right now, are there any big construction projects (or other plannable things, versus problems like car accidents) on I-75 between Chattanooga and Knoxville? The goal is to go to church in Dayton on the morning of the 20th and then go a little past the Cumberland Gap that afternoon; I especially don't feel like getting stuck in a traffic jam if it's something that all the locals (and semi-locals like you) already know about. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an ambitious plan for a 3-day road trip! (I hope you're planning on a bit longer than 3 days, if you want to cover that much territory and take pictures, too.)

I haven't been to Chattanooga recently, so I'm not aware of any construction on I-75 in that direction. The Tennessee DOT website is a fairly good source of info on roadwork on the Interstates, though. Anyway, if you want to go to Dayton, you probably are going to be away from I-75 for a substantial part of your trip. US 27 and state route 58 are a lot more interesting than I-75.

There is a major construction project on I-640 in Knoxville that is causing traffic delays, particularly during rush hour. That's relevant to you because I-75 is concurrent with the western leg of I-640 (I-640W), but I believe that the current construction is on I-640E. Anyway, if you are on a photo trip, your route north from Knoxville to Cumberland Gap might not include I-75.

When traveling in this area, you need to be aware that the ridges and valleys trend SW-NE. Travel across the grain of the topography (for example, on roads like US 25-E) can be slower than the linear distance suggests it should be, but it's often interesting. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I hadn't at all thought of checking the TDOT website, and now that you suggested it, I've found their helpful Smartmap. I'll definitely remember your comment about the across-the-ridge driving — with one exception, all my hill-country driving has been in places like southern Indiana, where the ridges go in random directions, so no direction is naturally simpler or quicker than others. I've got a campsite reservation at Mousetail Landing on Friday night, Saturday I'll work my way to Dayton by way of MS/AL/GA/SC/NC (my parents have friends there, so I'll be indoors one night), another campsite reservation in Harlan County KY on Sunday night, and then north to Ohio to visit family for a week. Definitely not trying to get Indiana-style dense photo coverage or making long detours anywhere on this trip (except for the occasional county with just one or two sites), so the goal is to get something in six states that I've not visited in a long time (or never), and at least one site in almost every county through which I pass. Re your comment about "might not include I-75", I'm looking to go east to Athens and then northeast, and it was a debate between going interstate (and getting off for photos) or just staying on US11 until hopping on the interstate at Lenoir City and taking it as far as northern Knoxville's US441 exit, then state highways toward US25E at Tazewell. I guess I'll stay on I-40 through downtown Knoxville and skip the beltway. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I-40 through Knoxville lacks charm, but you will get a glimpse of the Sunsphere. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Orlady, assuming you're still active in the category of "Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles," could I inquire if there's a way to see the version of Alexander McCurdy that was deleted in 2008, according to User_talk:Rbiswanger#Speedy_deletion_of_Alexander_McCurdy? I'm working on the current version of the article, whose history started in 2009 -- and for comparison I'd be very interested to see the article's previous incarnation that disappeared in 2008. Thanks very much for your help, or if you can point me in the right direction. -Patrug (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been talkpagestalking at my talkpage, so I might as well return the favor :-) Patrug, the entire contents were as follows:

Alexander McCurdy was an acclaimed organ teacher at Philadelphia's Curtis Institute of Music and was also organist of the city's First Presbyterian Church. Among his many notable students are Michael Stairs, Keith Chapman and John Binsfeld.

Thank you, Orlady, very much indeed for your tireless and patient hard work and skill in getting the complex article William Swinden Barber through its DYK preparation! Storye book (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. Meanwhile, I congratulate you on the article! --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, thank you for reviewing and editing the article for Diamond Ranch Academy! I forgot to mention this in my initial comment on the talk page, but there are also two words in the top section that the past editor added without providing adequate citation. I'm wondering if you could look into this as well? These are the words "misdemeanors" and "felonies" in the first section. Thank you for all of you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosettej (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, color me corrected. I don't quite see the point of omitting relevant links while maintaining lists of marginally-related ones, but it does tell me here that it a general rule not to include in a "see also" something that is otherwise referenced in the article. [14]. Who knew? :) Well, I suppose I ought to... I'd still make the case for including his father in this list, since when he appears in the article, it's basically as his father. The rest of the "See Also" list is so marginally related as to be slightly wacky - not at all related by facts, only partially related by chronology, and only tenuously related by topic. The topic, obviously, is "other architects who have lived in Knoxville at any point in time in their lives," but out of a list of hundreds of people who would fit that bill, being that there are four who have existing Wikipedia articles, excluding one because he happens to be Charles' father certainly, to my mind, muddles whatever the purpose of the list actually is. I'd argue, contrarily, that common sense would encourage leaving him there. Archarin (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has more policies and guidelines than any one person can possibly expect to be fully versed in... I happen to know about the guidelines for See also sections, and now you do, too!

Rather than adding bloat to the See also section, I suggest that the article could be developed so that (1) it contains more content about his connection to his father and the rest of the family and (2) any items on the "see also" list that are actually relevant to this article are linked within the text of the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Orlady is right. Per WP:See also, the section should not contain links to other articles that are already linked to in either the article or any navbox that is in the article....William 13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO does state that "as a general rule". There are situations where a redundant see also link is appropriate, but those situations are not common. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Orlady, I know I might be asking too much from you now a days, still I like the way you paint an article. Will u please pen through Death and adjustment hypotheses at least for once? I know it might not be a topic you are expert on, but I need some wiki expert who would shape it as a better wiki-article.Bolton007 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

This entry for Open University of Switzerland has reappeared in a different form ABMS Open University. This was deleted after AFD earlier this year. How does one proceed with this, recommend a PROD? Audit Guy (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it as a recreation of an article deleted by AFD. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

but the article was made before as an advertisments, now i made just simple article. NO REASON TO DELETE --Mr.Agabi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I am working there and if somebody wrote an article which was full of advertisments and unclear informations and you deleted doesnt mean you allowed to Delete any article written about ABMS GmbH, OTHERWISE we will Prosecute WIKIPEDIA if this unnecessary jokes stop now --Mr.Agabi (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But Sorry we are new online business School in Switzerland how can you expect to see informations about us everywhere? check our website, you welcome to call us, and if in the article i wrote was anything unclear than please tell me, but just deleting because you didnt find enough sources, its normal because we are new, if you keep deleting than we must Prosecute as person and Wikipedia --Mr.Agabi (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the purpose and scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for announcing or publicizing new organizations. Encyclopedia content must be based on content that has already been published somewhere else by reliable sources independent of the article's subject. Please see WP:NOT and WP:Notability for more information. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

but sorry i can show you 1 million article on wikipedia and dont have reliable sources and sorry you can find about us on Governments website and other website like QS-TopUniversities, Educations and many other websites, i can list 100 websites well known for education. tell me what is the solution now? can i write a normal article with reliable sources about or school OR we not allowed to write about our organization on Wikipedia because you decided we are not reliable sources? we need to know what to tell our lawyer when we start the case against you. thank you --Mr.Agabi (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

should i make another article with reliable sources like Governments website, QS... and than you have look on it, if OK tell me and keep it, and hope to solve this problem without going to court, because it will be just headache for both of us but if court is the only solution for us to be on wikipedia than we will do it. I am trying here to find a solution, i hope you too. please tell me should i create new article or no. thank you --Mr.Agabi (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the sources you mention are not reliable sources for purposes of Wikipedia. A new article based on those sources would be subject to deletion based on the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open University of Switzerland. If you believe that the conclusion of that discussion was incorrect, I suggest that you contact the administrator who closed the discussion (write to him at User talk:Stifle). --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A Governments website is not reliable sources thats new to hear... for sure now you tell me to contact somebody else --Mr.Agabi (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The government website indicates only that this institution is a registered business. That information does not indicate notability and it is not a sufficient basis for writing an article.

I will explain why I suggested that you contact User:Stifle. It is becoming clear that you will not accept what I am telling you. That means that your next step is to ask for a formal reconsideration of the deletion decision. The Wikipedia procedure for disputing a deletion decision says that your first step should be to contact the administrator who deleted the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, earlier you said you would prosecute Wikipedia for refusing to include this article. That is not a good way to convince other Wikipedia users to do something. In fact, threats of legal action can cause your editing access to be blocked. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, Academy of Business Management article has now been created in place of ABMS Open University. It still lacks sources, and in my opinion continues not to be notable. I was wondering - were you contacted prior to its write up? Audit Guy (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted that article as a recreation of an article deleted earlier by XfD. I was unaware of it before seeing your message. --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for expanding the Fruitvale, Tennessee article. It was on Nyttend's Zipcode Directory and I started the article with help from The Catalyst31. Again my thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I was suspicious of that myself, but I didn't have the time to go through with the bureaucratic bits today; thanks for looking into it. You also might want to look into A1Houseboy, who has a similar pattern of editing (and is tied to this suspicious edit). TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 04:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at that user briefly, but clearly I should have looked more closely. The recent edit on your talk page clinched it for me. I blocked that user temporarily and added the user name to the SPI case. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, given your issues with the earlier versions of this article, I was hoping you could stop by and check the finished version to see whether it now meets DYK standards. If you're not interested in reviewing it again, let me know here and I'll put the "again" icon on it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Please don't pipe intentional disambiguation links like this - the "(disambiguation)" needs to be in the link itself to keep the page from showing up as an error. Cheers! bd2412T 21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your explanation with your edits. While the institution is not accredited through an external agency, the references to the U.S. Armed Services warning about diploma mills is not relevant in this situation. Hyles-Anderson College is approved for for VA Benefits through the Indiana Commission for Postsecondary Proprietary Education. The four warnings listed in the linked reference page do not apply:

The school does not require studying, tests or essays.

The school boasts of accreditation, i.e., “fully, nationally or worldwide accredited,” but has no legitimate accreditation.

The school relies on “portfolio assessments” or “life experience.”

The school advertises through e-mail messages sent to millions.

The reference cited in regard to public schools not accepting unnacredited degrees is a broken link (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#training) and gives a blanket statement that does not give a true representation of the degree programs offered. Pandeboyce (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:

In this edit[16] of yours you removed the category 'People from Washington County, Tennessee'. I am relinking 'People from Kingsport, Tennessee' to that category because that city is partially in Washington County. Consensus is that if a 'People from' city category is even a slightest bit in multiple counties, it gets categorized in all of them. Please note 'People from Johnson City, Tennessee' and how its categorized in three 'People from' county categories though most of the city lies in Washington County....William 18:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to lecture me about an edit I made over 4 years ago. I suppose you find it gratifying to take me to task for every mistake I ever made.

As it happens, I didn't even make the mistake you accuse me of. If you read the history, you will see the category had been configured to include all people from any part of a 4-county area as "people from Kingsport." My edit changed the category description to indicate that it is only for people from Kingsport, and not also people from places like Bristol, Virginia, and I removed it from inappropriate categories like Category:Bristol, Virginia and Category:People from Washington County, Virginia. Contrary to your allegations here, I didn't remove it from Category:People from Washington County, Tennessee -- because it wasn't previously in that category. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

I have pinged you, BlueMoonset and Materialscientist at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60#Asking_for_Noting_bot, because I do not have enough bot knowledge to answer the question as to whether a bot, rather than user Preferences, can be employed for an opt out on the DYK notification bot. Hopefully, one of the three of you has such knowledge. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't responded because I have no expertise in this area. --Orlady (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you were instrumental in creating the page on Betty Bumpers, also with the information on Peace Links. I just had a page sanitized concerning an event that Betty and Peace Links were involved with a number of years ago. I was wondering if you would consider being of some assistance to getting some information restored and a image. Thank you 24.251.41.161 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Orlady. As you are an active Wikipedian in Tennessee I wanted to tell you about the "Wikipedia Summer of Monuments" project. Here you can find a tool that shows you nearby monuments on the National Register of Historic Places, and whether or not they've been photographed for Wikimedia Commons. Actually it seems like Oak Ridge is pretty well photographed, but you'll notice a few nearby spots like "Freels Cabin" that are still unpictured. Or maybe you feel like going on an adventure!

We are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tennessee and some other states that aren't well represented; please let me know if you have any ideas about how to do this! :-) So let's talk about it on here, or you can also email monuments@wikidc.org. Salutations, Monumenteer2014 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orlady. I recall the good work you did on the Hillsdale College article, which included a lot of primary sourced description and other text. I wonder whether you could have a look at the Stefan Molyneux article, on which several editors have expressed concerns about the sourcing. Any participation there would be appreciated. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 03:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Re a posting by me that you responded to. I just want you to know my comment was not meant as a slip-up on your part, but a comment on mine. I think our nerves are a little edgy these days. Bad karma does that. I've not nominated anything since the gang blew into town. It's just too unpleasant to think about. Not that there isn't room for betterment straight across WP. But that's getting lost behind barf bag behavior. I realize you have been targeted lately. As has everybody, it seems, who dares to breathe and exist on the planet. Some sure know how to suck the joy right out of the room, but you would not be one of those. Didn't want any misunderstanding coming from me. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your words. I must say that I was perplexed by what seemed like negativity from you. I'm sorry that I responded as I did. My nerves are most definitely on edge these days whenever I go near DYK. This too shall pass, I hope... --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So we're cool with each other now. I enjoy running across your work now and then over in the "greenest state in the land of the free", over in Davy's stomping grounds. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that interesting man who much preferred to be "David", but apparently is "Davy" forevermore. After you created the category recently, I was pleased to help populate it... --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I made an initial comment on the TN project that it would be good to see that article as FA. And it would. However, since I made that comment, I've had a small experience on the Featured level: FA, FL, FLC and a GA, with the intent of reaching FTC. None of which I started out to do with my first cleaning up of references tagging on the original article. A learning curve, to be sure. And a learning curve that makes me realize that even if I had every resource ever published, I could never get Death controversy past the first hurdles. But I can dream that someone else can. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd rather work on creating "good enough" content than on collecting "credits" from GA, FA, etc. I did shepherd a couple of lists through FL a long time ago, and I did a number of FLC reviews. I learned a good bit from that experience. I also have done a very wee bit of GA reviewing, and I had a small role in supporting Hawkeye7's eff ort that got Manhattan Project promoted to FA. That article had been subject to a good bit of edit warring before the FA campaign, and since then it's been pretty stable. If you ever get the courage to attempt something similar for Davy, maybe it would put an end to the battles over his death. Or maybe not... --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been working 18 months on Audie Murphy. What started out as one poorly written article has now become six separate articles/lists on him personally, plus one about his book, and two others about a museum and hospital named for him. Who would have known? Sources on Murphy are limited. It's not at the end of the line yet. It taught me a great deal about editing at WP and how a really-properly formatted article should be. I owe a lot to the folks at WP:MILHIST for that. I can see separate articles on Crockett, for his Congressional career and for his death. Way more sources to pour through on him than Murphy.

Re Crockett's death, I prefer to believe the people who were actually inside the Alamo and attest to where he died. Even if we AGF that de la Peña told it as he believed it to be...how did he identify who was who? No photo IDs in those days. Probably didn't have their names sewn into their underwear. We don't to this day know 100% who was inside the mission, so they didn't have a list of names. What was to stop somebody from claiming to be celebrity David Crockett in hopes of being given preferential treatment? I did see Discovery channel MythBusters on this. I believe they said de la Peña's diary was written by different people over different periods of time. However...as we are living through right now...there are those among us who want to keep an argument going just to feel important. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot fix this typo (government) and I noticed that someone wrote stuff like:

"The Council are having to sell off assets because for two decades their chief executives for some reason best known to themselves were not aware that women were being underpaid, and this initiated a flood of claims from other employees past and present with crippling results to Birmingham's prestige as the Second City. Liam Bryne the Labour MP for Hodge Hill has so far failed to support residents in their fight to have these sub-standard and dangerous blocks bulldozed."

Thank you for your efforts to correct misspellings of "government." That's a good way to get started as an editor of Wikipedia.

You couldn't correct the typo in State of Palestine because that article is protected from editing by newly registered users -- a restriction that helps prevent the frequent addition of opinionated rhetoric, like the content you found at Bromford.

I fixed the problems you detected in both articles, and I added a comment at Talk:Bromford. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help! I may have to declare war on goverment. Poveglia (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again but I found more "opinionated rhetoric" here. I started by fixing the typo, but then I reverted back to Dual Freq's version. The IP is blocked now but I am not sure if the most recent edit should be reverted. Thanks again, Poveglia (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That last edit was OK. The content that was deleted didn't belong in an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE for perspective on the Wikipedia policies that indicate why that content didn't belong here. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orlady, your name came up in the history of the page so I figured I will approach you with this problem. The above linked article was stable for a number of years with the name Palestinian land laws. An editor came along moved it three times in one day and finally decided on the name above. This is obviously a controversial move and this should have gone through the process at WP:RM. It can only be moved back by an administrator which is why I come to your talk page. Can you please move it back so the stable name so that any proposal should go through the proper process required for such non-technical moves. Many thanks, --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. For your less mature editor comment at User talk:EEng....William 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this. The article was apparently expanded by banned user Russavia using an IP, and probably using a different IP to intervene in the DYK discussion. It's been sitting for 19 days; I'd like to get it broken free by an admin who better understands the issues around banned users, since I can remember some instances of nominations getting closed and some where they were preserved (though that difference might be due to self-nominations not surviving, while noms by others were retained). Thanks for anything you can do here; if you'd rather not weigh in, I'll see who else might be willing to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, orlady. Since you have edited this page in the past, I wanted to let you know that there is a NPOV issue on the latest revision to the Kevin Huffman page. It was made by Sallysuzzi at 04:34, 23 July 2014.

The added text is as follows:

"Since his appointment, Huffman has become known for messing up Tennessee's education system with unfair teacher evaluations. A record breaking number of teachers have left the profession due to Huffman's tactics. Children as young as age 5 had to take developmentally inappropriate standardized test under Huffman's lead. The SAT-10 test that many of the students took for teacher evaluation purposes was not based on Tennessee state standards. This means teachers were and still are evaluated based on a test that does not cover the material they teach. As a result many teachers have lost their jobs and a campaign has been launched by many state representatives and others calling for his resignation."

The subject article was published this past weekend, and I've been trying to get it placed in WikiProject areas that make the most sense. I believe HOP Ranch may fit better in American Old West than anywhere else.

I also feel strongly that it is well beyond start class. I think it's at least class B. I'm wondering if you might consider reviewing it and evaluating for yourself.

Hello User:Orlady, I am a relatively new editor and I saw a message on the Administrator Noticeboard saying that DYK was overdue. I would like to help as much as humanly possible, so I have proceeded to do 4 DYK reviews. Before doing so I read the DYK guidelines. The reviews I have done are:

I would be happy to do more if there is a need for it. I saw your name on one review so before I do more could you please review my reviews and advise me if I am doing everything ok. Many thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you visit the Concordia College and University article? I know you have history on it and I'm hoping you can help resolve a conflict. There is information in the talk page under Location section changes.

May I beg you help with something I'm trying reorganize and get rid of the POV stuff I put in ages ago when I was a newbie. I don't know how to do stuff like redirecting sections. Basically the school stuff doesn't belong in the Michael DeSisto article. However a hotlink or howver it's done should point to the controversies section of DeSisto School to make both articles cleaner.

Orlady, both the nominator and editor of the article have commented since your last post here. I can't figure out where this stands; can you please take another look, and take whatever step comes next? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What topography described in the song's lyrics is found East TN, but not Middle or West TN? Bms4880 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, start with the juxtaposition "rocky" and "top" (often interpreted to refer to the Smoky Mountains, notwithstanding the claims of the former Lake City), which indicates rugged mountain topography, not rolling hills. Then there are the lyrics about the two strangers who climbed on rocky top -- "climbing" suggests a significant amount of topographic expression -- and soil that's too rocky to grow corn. To me, those characteristics set the song in East Tennessee -- unless you want to quibble that those conditions can also be found in places in easternmost Middle Tennessee (e.g., Fentress, Pickett, or Sequatchie counties). What's your thinking on this? --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's widely documented (or at least claimed) to have been written in Gatlinburg: [17], [18]. Every speculation I've ever seen about "where is Rocky Top" has always referred to places in East Tennessee (for example: [19]). --Orlady (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that paragraph #3 in that last article you cited was copied-and-pasted from the Wikipedia article. In any case, the song is more popular with East Tennesseans, and the Bryants were probably thinking of the Smokies when they wrote it, but it is speculation to say the song's lyrics refer specifically to East Tennessee. Bms4880 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at this nomination, which has been stalled for four weeks after a disagreement over the article's neutrality. Please let me know. Thanks as always for your excellent work on DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orlady, My name is Roni Freels. I am concerned about the article on your talk page referring to my hometown Annadell, Tennessee. I have information for the gentleman who apparently is arguing that Annadell is located in Scott county. I was born in the Annadell area of Lancing, Tenn. You are absolutely right about the Annadell Baptist church. My daddy helped to construct the earlier church, not the one standing in the same place today. We lived only a few feet from the church. I remember many Sunday's listening my daddy teach my class. I am crushed that the man writing the response to you that Annadell does not exist. I certainly can attest to its presence. Directly before my daddy passed away he turned the land he owned over to Guy Griffith, a friend and member of the Annadell Baptist Church. The reason my dad gave them the land was to establish another cemetery where he preffered to be buried. He and my mother are both buried in the Annadell cemetery directly across the road from the church. My daddy wanted to be buried under the tree where he and my mother courted, and that is exactly where he is. His grave is at the top of the cemetery next to the road marked "Freels". Perhaps if the one in question would look in the Lancing area on route 27 he would find the road to the cemetery across from the old Haun place. Thank you for your talk. Perhaps this will help. God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.20.59 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why it was deleted? I see your reason however its because the school didnt have any accreditation that time, now if you can see on the article it has many accreditations. please check again before deleting. thanks--Markos200 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted for lack of evidence of notability. The article that I deleted was much the same as the one deleted after the earlier deletion discussion. The fact that this organization appears on the lists that you cite here does not make it notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Additionally, your citations do not convince me that ABMS is accredited. --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The new article I wrote was with MANY additional links to WELL KNOW accreditation bodies, I spent hours to prepare it, if my citations didn't convince you maybe because you dont know the links I sent you :) I dont need to convince you if its accredited or not, you are not ministry of education, we are here to help in order to improve wikipedia articles, BUT ANYWAY let me explain you about the links I sent if you dont have time to know about it, but please note, I am not responsible here to convince you, we just write true facts, even if it didnt convince you.

I have sent you too many links and I have more, I dont want to spend hours on explaining you, let me just give short information to you:

4. its member by (ACBSP) on January 22, 2001, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Board of Directors granted recognition to the ACBSP.<ref>CHEA Directory</ref> On September 19, 2011 The CHEA renewed its recognition of the ACBSP for a further 10 years.<ref>CHEA Recognition Summary</ref> its just a member not accredited but a member means that this school is equivalent to US Regionally accredited institutions or at least has right to grant degrees [22]

- IF ECBE and ENQA are not notability source than I dont know what is a notability source. DO YOU WANT MORE we still have many links, like EFQM, ISO...?? Believe me, they are more accredited than 90% of schools with articles on Wikipedia. Please check links I sent you before just writing an answer. before I wrote this article, I called the accreditation bodies, I checked links, I wanted make sure what I write. I didnt spend hours on preparing an article in the end you say (do not convince me) I am not here to convince you, we are here to write true facts, if you are willing to know the truth you have to search not just read and say didn't convince me, please check before you answer I FORGOT TO TELL YOU, ALL THOSE LINKS ABOVE they were not in discussion 1 year ago :) how can you say its the same, I am surprised --Markos200 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think that appearing on a bunch of online lists (regardless of who published those lists) is sufficient to make an organization notable by Wikipedia standards, then you haven't comprehended [{WP:Notability]] and WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

lets make it point by point, now you agreed that my new article was not similar to old article, that's great :) finally, but again my long explanation and after 4 days didnt convince Orlady, I know very well what a notability source is, but if all above links for you are not notability sources it means there are no more notability sources, I gave you links up a ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom but you still dont like, I am afraid to tell you show me HOW my links are not notability sources, start to give me examples if you can. REMEMBER you are here to write true facts and not your opinion. People are not interested to read on WIKIPEDIA what Orlady believing, they are interested to see true facts and Wikipedia is the right place where we should be neutral when we write something.

Links I gave you

British Government

Home Office (ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom, responsible for immigration, security, and law and order. As such it is responsible for the police, UK Visas and Immigration, and the Security Service (MI5)

ASIC (Recognized accreditation in UK, in UK you cant enter as student if your school or university not accredited by ASIC, QAA or BAC, just for you to know how important is this accreditation)

SFEDI (Accredited Qualifications)

Ofqual (its Part of Ministry of Education in UK)

ASIQUAL (Accredited Qualifications)

National Computing Centre (established as an Information technology initiative by the British Government in 1966 and Recognized by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) in the UK)

ACBSP USA I hope you know it :) because you are from USA :)

CHEA USA I hope you know it :) because you are from USA :)

ECBE (well known accreditation body in Europe)

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) IF you dont know this organization you better check :)

EFQM (European first quality for management)

ISO (I think you know it :)

AND MANY MORE... ALL THOSE LINKS DIDN'T HAVE 1 year ago in the discussion. What I can offer you in order to solve this discussion is to prepare a better article with many notability sources like british Government, CHEA, ENQA..., I will re-write it with all those new links and you may check, if you like it, means keep it, if not we can discuss again, because just ignoring true facts wont help you as administrator on Wikipedia, those links are well known worldwide and people use them as notability sources and nobody can say no. if ok, please inform me. thanks --Markos200 (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Guilford Glazer died last Tuesday. I've added a reference (just got the e-mail). I will add an infobox. Funny that we are both interested in TN and BH!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Category:Historically segregated white schools in the United States[edit]

Hello, I wanted to let you know I nominated Category:Historically segregated white schools in the United States for deletion. I hope you will understand my rationale. If it is populated, it will contain most all of the high school-related Wikipedia articles in the South. Separate but equal was in name only and while many of the "white schools" are still in operation and racially integrated, the smaller black school buildings have long been shuttered. – Gilliam (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could provide a reference for the last sentence in the History section on the Oak Ridge gatehouses: The Bethel Valley Road large structure was painted in 2005 but there has been no restoration or other attention to the interiors of the two Bethel Valley structures and the small structures at the other sites.Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've found (and inserted) a reference that supports some of the content there. I'm sure that there was a more complete source at one time. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Further: The source of the information seems to be User:SmithDRay, who also happens to be the person quoted in the reference I cited. I can vouch for the truth of the statement that there has been no restoration of the Bethel Valley structure or the small structure at the other sites. If I wanted to know what year the Bethel Valley structure was painted, I'd ask D. Ray, as he probably has the records in his office. (But that's a detail that Wikipedia probably doesn't need.) --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I need you to review Burritt College for me. It seems that CorenSearchBot thinks I copied copyrighted material. :( --ACase0000 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note: while there was no straight-up copyvio, the Corenbot notice was probably triggered by WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I did some further rewording, and added material from two other sources, so it should be safe. Bms4880 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

support
Thank you stepping in wherever you see that you are needed, and that is a lot: translation, improvement of wording, understanding, and now coming to the rescue of an article a fighter for Human rights left us, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You may remember this RFC. Unfortunately, PBS has ignored your advice and is once again using exactly the same arguments on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Is there anything to be done? Parrotof Doom 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)